From: jim@bilbo.suite.com (Jim Miller)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: c9039a9341a6d407ebdc8dfe52ef76f5757741b6f690d8e48f8aa7271ab83cb9
Message ID: <9402151617.AA29710@bilbo.suite.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-15 16:40:26 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 08:40:26 PST
From: jim@bilbo.suite.com (Jim Miller)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 08:40:26 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Clipper and Traffic Analysis
Message-ID: <9402151617.AA29710@bilbo.suite.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> The reason I ask is, I have this sense that one reason the
> government likes Clipper is that the Law Enforcement
> Access Field enables agents to draw inferences about
> who's talking to whom and what they're saying, even
> without decrypting the actual communications.
>
Is it true that law enforcement can obtain phone records from the
phone company simply by asking? Or do they need a supena(sp)?
It would not surprise me in the least to hear someday that the
government will allow law enforcement to record LEAFs without having
to obtain a warrant for a wiretap. If Clipper becomes widespread,
and most conversations are encrypted, the government might
conveniently redefine the term "wiretap" to mean "decrypting a
Clipper conversation". This would open it up for the government to
continuously monitor and record LEAFs, probably via the soon to be
mandated "wiretap" capabilities the FBI is pushing for.
"After all, the LEAF is just the electronic equivalent of your phone
record. This new definition of "wiretap" does not give law
enforcement any new capabilities. Since the actual contents of the
conversation are encrypted, there is no invasion of privicy. We're
just trying to keep up with the latest technological advances."
Jim_Miller@suite.com
Return to February 1994
Return to “rarachel@prism.poly.edu (Arsen Ray Arachelian)”